HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 73 
And, in your opinion, has it brought about any less research or any 
less effective research in Great Britain than would have otherwise 
been the case ? 
Dr. Bernstein. No, sir. 
Mr. Roberts. Do you take the viewpoint that proper care of the 
research animal could result in an even higher type of research, a bet- 
ter quality of research ? Let us put it that way. 
Dr. Bernstein. I think it could, sir. I do not think that one could 
say that it was essential to research being better. The thing is that 
there are many kinds of research ; there are many kinds of experiment ; 
there are many objectives in experimentation. For some of these a 
well-cared-for animal, one that is not suffering pain, is absolutely 
essential; the objective of the experiment would be entirely lost if the 
animal were not well cared for, if it were, in fact, suffering pain. Pain 
is one of the causes of shock. A shocked animal is not physiologically 
normal. If you were trying to investigate the normal regulatory 
mechanisms of, for example, the circulatory system, then to do your 
experiments on a shocked animal would be scientifically stupid. Ob- 
viously, for experiments of this kind, the assurance the animal was 
properly anesthetized would be an absolutely essential requirement. 
I can think of other experiments where this would not be necessary, 
but, on the other hand, this does not mean that it would not be desirable. 
Mr. Roberts. Do you know if there was a lot of opposition — I know 
that has been 86 years ago — do you know from the history of enact- 
ment of the British bill whether or not there was a lot of opposition 
to the bill at that time on the part of the medical profession ? 
Dr. Bernstein. I do not think I am competent to answer that 
question, sir. 
Mr. Roberts. So far as you know, has the bill been amended or 
changed in any respect from its original form ? 
Dr. Bernstein. I think there have been occasional amendments. 
One of the important things about it is that its terms are unspecific 
and broad ; this gives a great deal of power to the Plome Secretary, 
who then provides by regulation under the act for changes that are 
needed. This, I think, has avoided the need for a good deal of sub- 
sequent amendment, but there have been minor amendments of the 
bill. 
Mr. Roberts. Do you think that that same system might probably 
be the case if the Griffiths bill is adopted : that a good bit of it would 
be by regulation on the part of whatever Secretary is given, or 
Cabinet officer is given power under this bill ? 
Dr. Bernstein. Yes. 
It is a little difficult for me to comment about things of this kind ; 
I feel a bit out of my depth and perhaps irresponsible in offering sug- 
gestions. I think that in administration of this kind much depends 
on getting the right sort of administrators. If an act of this sort 
is passed, one ought to beware of creating a regulatory agency in 
which the operational decisions were essentially made by people whose 
primary training was as administrators. There are plenty of people 
who have begun life, begun professional life, thinking that they would 
like to be medical research workers or teachers, and who have found 
that, while they have a great interest in and possibly a great tech- 
nical aptitude for this work, they lack the peculiarity of mind that 
